Organization of the Roman Army from 565 to 641

[comitatus (Marco)]

HI.

According to Simon MacDowall (Late Roman Cavalryman AD 236-565 and Adrianople AD 378), after Adrianople (AD 378) the mobile comitatenses become more as the static limitanei, and by the 6th century they were finally reduced to static garrisons. As the reliability of the regular army decreased, the emperors, military commanders and rich individuals began to created bands of private retainers (comitati or bucellarii), who by the 6th century were institutionalised, while the roman field armies had evolved into large bands of mounted warriors. Also after Adrianople, barbarian allies or foederati were given land to settle in return for military service, and by the-mid 6th century they evolved into regular units of lancers.

What happened after the death of Justinian I?

I don’t know, but Heraclius is said to have regrouped parts of the armies of Illyricum, Thrace and the East in Asia Minor. The end of the late roman army?

Someone knows in detail the organization of the army from 565 to 641? Someone might provide some article for me?

[Robert Vermaat]

I don’t know, but Heraclius is said to have regrouped parts of the armies of Illyricum, Thrace and the East in Asia Minor. The end of the late roman army?

Heraclius fundamentally changed the organisation of Byzantine defence by organising the army into smaller, self-suppicient units. The new military regions (Tagmata) were no longer a defended border with a mobile field army in the hinterland, but could each defend their own region. In that sense yes, the end of the Late Roman defence organisation, but not the army of course.

Someone knows in detail the organization of the army from 565 to 641? Someone might provide some article for me?

I have great doubt that this information exists. There is no order of battle of Justinian's army, as there also is no order of battle of Diocletian's army. Let's be thankful we have the order of battle of Theodosius' army!

[Sean Manning]

The Strategikon of Maurice, written within a decade of 600 CE by a practical soldier, describes the arms and organization of the Byzantine army of its day. G.T. Dennise has a modern English translation out in paperback. It doesn't have anything like a list of troops in service at some date, but it does have a detailed discussion of organization and cavalry equipment and there are some allusions to recruitment and procurement of supplies. It has fascinating discussions of issues like the proper depth of a cavalry formation (the author thinks that more than four ranks are little good, since the rear ranks of a cavalry formation cannot press those in front of them forward, but says that deeper depths of up to ten are usually needed to avoid making the line too long or running out of brave soldiers to put in the front rank).

Things were disorderly enough for part of this period, with troop strengths under imperial control shifting and moving about the empire (I'm thinking especially of the way the armies of Belisarius and Narses moved about), that I doubt there is any simple answer to how the Byzantine army was organized.

[comitatus (Marco)]

Thanks, Robert.

Then it might be said that under the Justinian's successors there was not major changes in the organization of the roman army up to Heraclius, when after the devastating invasions the imperial defense centers now in Asia Minor.

This mobile field army of Heraclius is the Opsikion (in latin Obsequium), descendant from the praesentalis?

[Salvianus]

You beat me to it, Sean, the Strategikon is a comprehensive guide - albeit arguably sometimes more 'what should be' rather than 'what is' - which also includes military maxims of the day, the author's views on various other cultures' armies of the day & how to tailor your tactics to each, drill instructions, how to prevent ambush, discover and use spies, prayers and diagrams showing camp fortifications and formations for various purposes.

Sleep with it next to you, beside your spatha!

[Mitra]

Fundamentally the old field armies are fixed to regional subdivisions (thema), like soldier-farmer; this is a very lenght process completed during the VII century.

THis is the scheme of Threalgold for 773 ad:

559 (field armies) 773 (theme)
Praesantales old opsician
east anatolic
armenia armeniac
Thrace Thracesian
Illirycum Old Carabisian
Italy sicily

Plus the permanent tagmatas, the units a Costantinople (numera,walls,scholae,excubitores,watch,optimates)

[Robert Vermaat]

The Strategikon of Maurice, written within a decade of 600 CE by a practical soldier, describes the arms and organization of the Byzantine army of its day.

You beat me to it, Sean, the Strategikon is a comprehensive guide - albeit arguably sometimes more 'what should be' rather than 'what is' - which also includes military maxims of the day, the author's views on various other cultures' armies of the day & how to tailor your tactics to each, drill instructions, how to prevent ambush, discover and use spies, prayers and diagrams showing camp fortifications and formations for various purposes.

Exactly guys, the Strategikon is an army manual, an invaluable one I agree. But the question was if there was detailed information about the army organisation from 565 to 641 and as to that, the answer must remain a negative. We know of course some names, and the rough organisation, but no army strenghts, unit strengths, units names and numbers.

But then of course I'm by no means an expert on this period so please prove me wrong.

[Sean Manning]

I got Maurice for Christmas and have read it once before, and I recall a general impression of flexibility around the core of professional armoured horse-archers and lances. The main book assumes an army of pure cavalry except a few infantry to guard the camp and clear rough terrain, but there is a section "infantry can be useful too, and here is how they are armed and drilled." Looking through my notes, I see an army of three cavalry meroses, each of two or three moiras, each of 5-15 tagmas/arithmoi/bandons (the three names are suggestive) each of 200-400 men to prevent the enemy from determining troop strengths by counting banners. Below them the cavalry have captains of 100, 10, and 5 included in the strength of each unit, and there are a few supernumaries. Again, there is nothing like "in 592 AD the following units, with the following current strengths as of March 1st, were stationed in the following places in the following hierarchy." (Not that we ever have such good information about the Roman or Byzantine army).

The Strategikon is an amazing resource for all periods of military history before the industrial revolution, and I was surprised to see how long it took for a translation to come out and that I hadn't heard of it before I bumped into it a few years ago.

[Salvianus]

Exactly guys, the Strategikon is an army manual, an invaluable one I agree. But the question was if there was detailed information about the army organisation from 565 to 641 and as to that, the answer must remain a negative.

Fair enough, the Strategikon is more about 'tactical organisation' than unit strengths. I don't know of any source for those.

What astonishes me about the manual is that it gives us possible troop formations and dispositions on the battlefield down to where the commanders' batmen should be stationed, when for the Saxon period we are left combing poetry for hints as to wether they had any formation at all beyond 'let's make a shield wall'. I'm just a fan

[Robert Vermaat]

for the Saxon period we are left combing poetry for hints as to wether they had any formation at all beyond 'let's make a shield wall'.